Over my past four years at Sauder it seems like I am constantly working in 3-6 teams at a time. Every class has a huge group project due at the end of term where each member of the team receives the same grade. To say the least it is very stressful especially when you are stuck with group members who are depending on you to do all the work.
Despite working in groups that make you wish the term was over, I have also gotten to work in some amazingly productive teams. I have noticed a few key differences when working in an awful team versus working in an amazing team. In the awful teams, I find that there is always someone who really does not want to do the work and coasts off of everyone else. This brings the team’s morale down. Who wants to put in all the effort and receive the same grade as someone who puts no effort in? Not me! Also, I find that there is usually one group member who is very set on an idea and not open to changing their idea based on what other group members think. The team just goes along with their idea even though it is usual incomplete or not ideal for the project. This is reflected in the marks I receive for my projects. Those teams that I felt were productive and I enjoyed working in, I do much better than those that were not a fun experience.
After reading Katzenbach and Smith’s article on “The Discipline of Teams”, it is very clear that those groups that in my eyes were awful where not teams at all but a working group. They mention that a working group has a strong, clearly focused leader whereas a team shares leadership roles. This is one of the aspects that I noticed when I had a productive team. The other aspect of a team that makes it different from a working group is members are both individually and mutually accountable unlike working groups where members are only individually accountable. This is a big deal. When you are accountable for the whole project like we are in school, you are very concerned about the work that others produce and do all that you can to help them succeed at completing their task. This makes the whole team more productive because everyone is directing all their efforts to ensure the team succeeds.
Teams that are the most productive are those that have diverse members each who brings their own skills and view points to the table; allowing you to do things together that you could not imagine doing individually. In Kelley’s, “The Ten Faces of Innovation”, he talks about the devil’s advocate of a team; the person who is the pessimist, always tearing down ideas. He says the devil’s advocate is toxic to an organizations quest for innovation, but I have to disagree with this point. I think having someone who puts on the “black hat” adds some insight to the team. It can make an idea that seemed amazing and great transform into something that is actually amazing and great. I find when I have worked on a team and we have all gotten excited over an idea, we are just so excited to have come up with it that we do not look at the cons. To have someone mention the cons and make us think about our idea and strive to make it better adds value to the final deliverable.
There is also a type of group I have not mentioned yet; the groups that Katzenbach and Smith would classify as teams but still seem to lack innovation. I will call them the mediocre teams. These were usually the teams were I felt uncomfortable working with my group members. I would think twice about what I was going to say and found that my group members would talk over each other, not listening to one another. As a result, we were unable to come up with innovative ideas. Buchholz and Ruth’s article “Creative Talents: Who’s Got an Idea?” outlines these mediocre groups and they specify that it limits creativity. It is clear that a functional team must have members that are comfortable sharing their opinions with each other and who listen. Without team members listening to each other, you may as well not be in a team and do the work yourself. You would be more productive that way.
I’m thrilled to say that I think Halfmoon was a pretty great team! Somehow, without truly defining what roles we would each play or how we would work best, we came up very successful in each of our deliverables. I think that one of the things that made our group so functional, was our similarity in perspectives, not necessarily on our task at hand, but on what this blog is about…groups! With a similar understanding what makes groups/teams work, I think it was easy for us to play our roles and shift roles when needed. We were accountable to each other and did not panic despite the many deadlines and challenges that we faced.